JOHN, PAUL, GEORGE and RINGO - *re-shuffle that (hackneyed) sequence for a change?? | Page 2 | Fab Forum | The Beatles Bible

edwardtheconfessor said

kelicopter said

Here’s my thinking @edwardtheconfessor

John and Paul going first in the order makes sense with them being the songwriters, especially in the early years. Ringo not being a songwriter,

  

(The first of) my  reactions then, as promised (or ‘threatened’? Lol!) to kelicopter and others who have taken the trouble to post responses here… and to anyone else who may wish to continue the debate??

Firstly (as I quote kelicopter above):- John (Lennon) and Paul (Mc. Cartney) were the principal songwriters?  Well, yes; and sort of no.  In point of fact we now know that George was also writing – even by the time of their recording contract.  However, his work was constantly being sidelined by Lennon and Mc. Cartney.  Many popular music historians have since noted this, and Geroge himslef later talked about it – rather ruefully – after the break-up.  His own composition ‘Only A Northern Song ‘ (one of the very few actual, and new, Beatles tracks on the 1969 double ‘Yellow Submarine ‘): that song rather obliquely hints at this – and George himself later enlarged on this in interview. As a matter of fact, undeniable evidence there was of his writing abllity, even as early as 1964 (‘Don’t Bother Me ‘ by Harrison was on their second allbum ‘With The Beatles ‘);  and it’s certainly as good a song as anything Lennon and Mc.Cartney were writing at the time.

And by the time of the 1965 albums ‘Help ‘ and ‘Rubber Soul ‘ he was already contributing manifestly… and what is more, he was writing alone.  Lennon and Mc. Cartney still continued, though, to resist putting any of his compostions out as single material tracks.  As far as I can recall only two  ever were:-‘The Inner Light ‘ – as effectively the flipside of ‘Lady Madonna ‘ -in 1968 … and ‘Something ‘ – as one of thier last releases anyway – in late 1969 c/w ‘Come Together ‘. While George was energetically writng – alone – and struggling, and eventually succeeding, in getting SOME of his material at least onto albums: these, of course, were still the heady days of Beatlemania. So, there was little excuse really – ever in fact – for putting him in a ‘second tier’ on this account.  And we should rememer that, as I have already noted in earlier posts on this thread, he was the LEAD (guitarist) – and without him most of their material would have sounded empty indeed (in fact, they would have had to engage a session guitarist to fulfill this role; so in this sense George was actually LESS ‘expendable’ than either John or Paul)… and I mean on ANY of their numbers, really; and up until around 1967 certainly  – and even after ‘Sergeant Pepper’  once again;  as their sound reverted, rather much again, to guitar-based leads (and George’s lead guitar playing becomes even more telling).

Oh, and his contributions to VOCAL HARMONIES /BACKING VOCALS (i.e. with Paul whenever John was singing lead,… or with John, whenever Paul was singing lead; not to mention his own lead vocals (when he got them!)): these were vital really, and indsipensible to their sound as well – the ‘microphone sharing’ which became so legendary to their stage appreance being very much an organic part of that, throughout those ‘Beatlemania’ years. Take away that vital ‘third voice’ in the harmony or backing vocals, on, say  a ‘Please Please Please Me ‘ an ‘Ask Me Why ‘ or a ‘There’s A Place ‘;  a  ‘She Loves You ‘ or an ‘I wanna Hold Your Hand’; and most especially a ‘This Boy ‘.. not to mention a ‘Twist And Shout ‘:- and what would you lose ? EVERYTHING that made them so distinctive, I will suggest! (And this is only to talk of theirr long run of top ten and number one 1963 songs that got everyone, but everyone talking about them – and many fanatical – here in UK!)

‘Ringo didn’t write’? Well, we now know that Ringo too was capable of writng – even that long ago.  ‘Don’t Pass Me By ‘ for example, was actually written by him years before Lennon and Mc. Cartney saw fit to include it on the ‘White Album ‘ of 1968.  ‘What Goes On ?’ (on ‘Rubber Soul ‘ of 1965) was co-written by Ringo, and it too is as good, in its way,  as anything Lennon and/or Mc. Cartney – or Harrsion, for that matter – were writng at that time. George later confirmed that ‘Octopus’s Garden ‘ … which was actually written by Ringo also; by at least1969 (but put out on ‘Abbey Road ‘ ) was really Ringo’s work entirely  [Ringo even later told, good-humouredly as was his way, in an interview, that he had been insprired to write this after tasting squid for the first time (some ‘legend’ versions of this have it that it was atually octopus itself, which is also edible in fact! I know; I’ve tried it myself!)].

In fact, I would say that – rather than the ‘ritual’ of Lennon and Mc. Cartney ‘putting their heads together’ once every album (exepct for ‘A Hard Day’s Night ‘, for which they didn’t even bother to do that!) in order to ‘write a song for Ringo to sing’ – they would have done much better (and I’m quite sure the fans would have liked this too) to have ENCOURAGED Ringo a little more in his own songwriting… instead of, as I believe to have been the case, BELITTLING IT.  That is a little far-fetched?  Well, not on the (actual and now known to be chronicled) evidence that I have just preseented here: for example, of  CLEAR evidence that they did precisely that with George’s compositons – and most especially in the very early days.  Granted; Ringo didn’t actually want to sing solo all that often (or at least, that’s what some biographers argue, anyway?); yet the very fact is that, as the sleeve notes themselves on ‘With The Beatles ‘ suggest; the fans always liked it when Ringo got a vocal solo from time to time too – from the days of ‘Boys ‘ onwards (check out those sleeve notes!). 

Myslef, I tend to opine that his voice could even have contributed much, much more than it did (was that a ‘John and Paul decision from above’ as well’?) to some of the vocal harmonies.  We can now see evidence, from a few (previously unreleased) recordings that he WAS capable in this regard too.  Do others agree on this?    I can even cite instances, not a few of them (e.g. on ‘The Morcambe and Wise Show’, in 1964) when, for example, Ernie Wise interviews, and has jokes and repartee with, the three ‘front row’ Bealtes (George, John, Paul)… whilst Ringo remains – as he almost invariably was ‘right at the back’ (on a plinth, usually) ‘half hidden’ behind his kit – and, apart from Eric Mrorcambe’s occasional shouts to him – of ‘Hello Bongo’ (deliberaltey getting Ringo’s name wrong… for added humour, no doubt!) – apart from that, Ringo is effectively ignored!  They don’t even give hims a microphone.

An accident?  An oversight? NOT AT ALL!  All this had been carefully pre-rehearsed (yes, even down to the corny jokes).  And how often did you ever hear Ringo announce a song?  Once in a Blue Moon (and that, usually, only when HE was going to sing it). DISGRACEFUL!  SHAMEFUL!!  Only, in fact, in the two (successful) movies, where Ringo’s pivotal role as part of the quartet cannot be ignored, do we start to get a much more balanced presentation generally!  True??  Good old, uncomplaining Ringo?  Well, in point of fact, and for a while (after they stopped touring and he was beginning to feel superfluous) Ringo atually WALKED OUT… for a while, as we now know (check out some of the comment posts on the ‘Ringo’s best drumming’ thread!)

In any event, I am very much in doubt that most of those (including even the ‘old squares’ who could also recite their names in the stereotyped order, in the days of Beatlemania) were even aware of all these nuances and subtleties.  Or perhpas, they didn’t care? Further: by about 1966, Lennon and Mc. Cartney were largley writing separately (as George Martin and others who worked with them later confirmed) and they were moving in quite different musical directions.  And, if you tote up ‘who was writing what’ by about the time of 1965 even, I think you will find Lennon and Mc. Cartney about ‘even stevens’ with each other in this, and with George pretty close behhid either one of them separately. 

So; no I cannot accept that this was ever the reason for always ‘rattling it off’ as ‘John, Paul…’ (etcetera!) and in that – forever unalterable – sequence.  No.  As I will come back to insisting, again and again – that was NOT the reason for this early established, and therafter UNALTERABLE;  ‘pecking order’. It was that pure and simple.  It was a ‘pecking order’ (or thought to be so).  Not chosen by The Beatles  themselves,  NO  not at all.  But a perceived one, nevertheless – imposed by outisders, as the ‘holy grail’ of introducing them – and – I’m afraid – one of (*outside*) perceived order of IMPORTANCE; theafter inviolable in the customary patter etcetera.  It was always  having little or no regard to such things as songwriters or songwriting ability, alas; or even as to how the balance of this may have altered (as precieved through what WAS actually being released over those heady years)… or to much else it would seem.

[I will take up some of the other points raised by kelikopter and others soon, in separate posts here, to follow very soon.  Meanwhile, all thoughts and feedbacks here – to all this so far – are, of course,  most welcome]. 

  

Hi everyone!  I’m back (thread starter, if memories go back that far – lol!).

Seems clear; I did the right thing stepping back for a while and letting a debate flow a bit.  It sure seems to be doing that now! GREAT! (Let’s hope we can keep it friendly – mock contentious, is of course all part of the fun… so long as it remains ‘mock’!).

HOWEVER:- !!!!!

Von Bontee said

Tony Japanese said

I was thinking about this thread earlier today (as you do) and my answer to the question, ‘why John, Paul, George and Ringo’ is because of the following:

Band line ups should be listed in the following sequence (in order of importance):

4. Singer

6. Songwriter

2. Guitarist (a. Lead, b. Rhythm)

3. Bassist

5. Other Instruments

1. Drummer.

  

Fixed!

  

NO!!!!  I admit to being very confused by the  nunbering system used in the above listing.  However, I can see no other way to make sensible response here; than to take the above listing as if it were a simple ‘top to bottom’ listing of importance – which I think is what the original poster meant?? If so, then, therfore:-

I’m sorry folks, but I simply cannot let all this go unchallenged… at least not without myself also putting in my ‘two penneth’ here!  I could conduct a numerical search, if you wish, of everything The Beatles (but not inlcuding Paul Mc.Cartney solo et al, or Wings; and not inclduing The Plastic Onon Band and/or John Lennon solo… and not including any of George Harrison ‘s POST-Beatles recordings (or Ringo’s either, for that matter) – so we leave all that out of the argument.  We talk, instead about recordings The Beatles actually made – while they were still The Beatles – even if, in some cases as we know, later released (but actually set down as BEATLES’ numbers – in the years that they were still that (circa 1960-1970)).

And I think you will find:

1) VOCALS (lead, as well as supporting/backing and harmony)…  you will find John and Paul pretty much ‘even stevens’ in this regard (I think I have touched on this already in an earlier post on this thread); with Goerge not actually far behind.  (Many are the numbers on which his was a vital supporting voice to either John or Paul or both (when they were lead vocal) as well as doing lead vocals of his own, of course… and from the very beginning). So, I therefore discount argument 1) above (as I shall – simply – number it); if  it is supposed to support the assertion that ‘John was the (usual) lead vocalist’.  No.  I won’t accept that.

2) WRITERS: again; I may have to do an actual count (as above); but I think you will find that John and Paul – even when they (mostly) stopped writing together (probably by about 1966): come out, once again ‘even stevens’ as songwriters… and again with George not so very far behind (and certainly so from about 1965, when Lennon and Mc.Cartney seem to have begun to come round to the idea of seriously working on, and recording, George’s compositions too  – and, be it noted, he also wrote ALONE (nearly always). So I therefore discount what I shall call point 2) above also; if it is an argument that Johhn should come first and Paul seond (with George a ‘poor third’)?  No, again. 

3) GUITARS NEXT:  But these arguments seem to have overlooked the fact that lead, rhythm and bass – even though two of these (lead and rhythm) are instruments tuned at the same pitch… yet these each perform DIFFERENT MUSICAL ROLES in the overall sound.  As I have already more than intimated in an earlier post on this thread: if you are going to argue for the (once traditional) lineup of lead, rythm and bass – and in that order (as it always was considered so then) then, by that token anyway: the ‘pecking order’ should have been GEORGE, JOHN, PAUL…  Will anyone gainsay that the LEAD is the most important (by reason of being most prominent anyway… after the vocals that is), the BASS nearly always necessary in some form – the RHYTHM GUITAR, however, tending to fall rather out of use by about the time that The Beatles folded up.  So: by that criterion: GEORGE, PAUL, JOHN…???

4) OTHER INSTRUMENTS:  The Beatles did use other instruments too, though;  on many of their recordings certainly… and, indeed, session musicians (even orchestras or ‘mini-orchestras’ later on) on some tracks, and George Martin himself not only added, as we know, some very clever studio effects and did quite a bit of the arranging, especially in the later years – but he also contributed instrumentally himself, usually keyboards (of different kinds) on some tracks – even from the beginning in point of fact.  Where exactly would we place these – and indeed, for that matter, John’s harmomica phrasing – which he used rather liberally – and tellingly – in the earlier days?.  In fact, from about the time of ‘Strawberry Fields’ and the album ‘Sergeant Pepper’ – there were numbers of tracks which were entirley arranged (with Martin’s help, and with The Beatles themselves completely complicit in this) with  no guitars on them at all!  Hmmm!

5) DRUMS: In point of fact, I think you will find that this was the ONE thing that was ALWAYS considered necessary – from the very birth of contemporary music itself (or ‘popular’ music, if you like) as soon as bands to play this began to exist at all:- through ragtime, blues, jazz, swing, Rock ‘N’ Roll ‘, skiffle (even if a ‘broomstick bass’ and washboard was used in some of these cases) and pop/beat music also always had a dummer – and including all through The Beatles’ active years… whatever other instumental lineup you had (be this brass sections with trumpet(s) and trombone(s), saxophones, keyboards (or not) and etcetera etcetera); the one thing you ALWAYS had, though,  was a A DRUMMER: whose origin dated back, in fact, to the breaking up of the old miltary marching bands (after the end of the American Civil War – when ragtime and music hall bands slowly began to develop, as the nineteenth century turned into the twentieth).  Take away the drums, or decide to omit the drummer altogether and …  Hmmm, again. No wonder The Beatles were in sore need of one, even when they first went to Hamburg (in 1960)!

If there are two instruments you really could not do without (and it still seems to be largely true today – nowtwihstanding all the amazing things we can now do with recording equipment, electronic effects, drum synthesisers, rhythm boxes or pads,  and so on) are a DRUMMER and a BASS PLAYER of some kind :- be that latter , as it was until probably from about the 1920s to the 1950s, a DOUBLE BASS;  played pizzicato (i.e. with the fingers) or even, as in much jazz and early Rock ‘N’ Roll played slap-back style … replacing as this did the, still earlier, use of the BASS TUBA OR A SOUSAPHONE; to fulfill an – effectively – similar role to that which the double bass would take over, by the time of most organised jazz bands (a TUBA is heard being used in this way on ‘When I’m Sixty-Four ‘ – with a deliberate attempt to re-create that early ‘dixie-land (trad) sound’).  Or be that as it began to be, increasingly, from about the 1950s: a BASS GUITAR in fact – as is now more usual of course. 

Some musicians still refer to the drums and bass guitar togther as the ‘rhythm section’ or ‘rhythm unit’ (and no, they do not include in this, by the way, also the rhythm guitar).  I would have to say, that I myself have never been entirely happy with this shorthand, because I know – and as we sought to achieve in our own beat group – a good bass guitar, played by a capable musican, should be able to do a lot more than merely ‘pump out a rhythm’.  The bass guitar, we always insisted, can – yes – provide a kind of ‘pulse’ to the music (I know – because my cousin and co-founder and I (he the drummer mostly, but able to play other instuments, I the keyboard player but ditto: we had to teach (in a friendly way) one or two bass guitarists that kind of bass guitar effect that we wanted); but that is a little different, and I think we have to leave that discussion just now.

So, as to argumnet four above (as I shall call it), then – well, if we go solely on critereon of musicial indispensibility to the overall sound (to its FOUNDATION, if you like) – whatever else in terms of instrumentation you may care to have… so long at least as The Beatles still chose to use the traditional beat group format at all: then the ‘pecking order’ would have to run:- RINGO, PAUL, GEORGE, JOHN.  See my point?

No, I’m sorry.  There is simply no getting away from the fact that this UNALTERABLE order became very soon ‘set in stone’ and invariably ‘trotted out’ by pretty much everyone (even by those who DETESTED The Beatles and their music, and even by those who knew (and cared) nothing about music at all.).. NOT for any of the above, I will say, ‘ingeniously devised’ justifications being offered here, after the event – but, instead, the crude and simple (and in my opinion singularly unfortunate one) that ‘everyone’ seems to have quickly acquired the idea that this was the order of personal importance to the group as a whole.  The Beatles themselves didn’t choose this, no.  But it soon became unalterable, ineluctable perception (even amomg their fans). As we have seen; it was not even the order of individual popularity with the fans (cf. my thread RINGO – EVERYBODY’s *SECOND* FAVOURITE BEATLE): Paul was always the ‘hearthrob’ in those days, with George in fact second (well behind!) and John and Ringo jointly ‘bringing up the rear’ in this regard.  So; nope!  Again: say whatever you will; I shall still always insist that crude perception of their personal importance: this was/is (unfortunately) sole reason for it, always was. 

If you want to argue – and I would be absolutley with you on that – that this was indeed crude, unfortunate, misleading, and took no accouunt of the REAL subtleties of making music together? ABSOLUTELY!  All of that! I would agree 100%.  Consider my point, raised also in an earlier post on this thread (cf. – allegedly said by Brian Epstein, confidentially “You, John are the mind, and Paul is the group’s heart [he was then, certainly, as we see] and George [undoubtedly the most spiritual of the four, as he openly became – from about 1967 – as we also know] is its soul.”  John asks “And what about Ringo?”  “Ringo is the flesh and blood.”  UNDOUBTEDLY TRUE all of this – and if Epstein never said this in fact then he should have!!